Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

I share the opinion that having a majority of people vote on a minority groups rights is inherently wrong.

The reason I inquired if virginia had the initiative process was because bocker mentioned that the only way virginia would legalize marriage would be from a court decision. I wasn't advocating that they should vote on it, just curious if they had that option (which they don't, from what I found on Wikipedia).

Which leaves a question...if your state can do a citizen driven initiative to put on the ballot a choice to legalize marriage should u do it? What if your states legislature isn't moving fast enough to legalize or what if your courts are not taking up the issue? Do you sit back and wait or do you do it yourself with an initiative?

There is something so satisfying about that ruling in Utah . It was the Mormon's and the wealthy empowered people of Utah that flooded California with money for the Prop 8 initiative . I bet they never thought this could happen on their own doorstep .

I, too, agree that rights should not be voted on, but seeing as there is no federal right to marriage at this time - I would explore if, it was the fastest avenue.I get that we shouldn't, but we DO - which is why my marriage is not recognized in VA.I mean should Maryland and Maine negate their marriage equality because it was done by popular vote??If only we could live in a world where this issue didn't exist, but alas, we do not (at this point, anyway).

Here is what confuses me and yet another reason I need to educate myself on how the federal justice system works.

If a federal judge says their ban is unconstitutional, then why is Kentucky's still considered constitutional? How can a federal judge decide one state's ban is unconstitutional, but that only applies to that state? Does a federal judge have to rule separately on each state ban? Would a judge need a case from each state? One would think if one ban is unconstitutional, then they all are. Is it left up to SCOTUS to rule on all states? Is this just how it works and SCOTUS would have to make the broad ruling?

Utah has appealed, but not before some already got their marriage licenses.

In each of these cases it is not the Supreme Court making the rulings but the Federal Circuit Court. Each of the Federal Circuit Courts can handle a few states. This is two steps below SCOTUS.

Someone with standing (two gay people who wanted to be married) had to bring suit that their rights were being violated at the local level and it moved through the state court to this level. Few cases ever get to the Supreme court level. Roe vs Wade is an obvious suggestion and that suit had to involve a pregnant women.

I would anticipate the states falling like cards after today's news....

Anyone who has can correct my murky thinking or has citations please do so.

I, too, agree that rights should not be voted on, but seeing as there is no federal right to marriage at this time - I would explore if, it was the fastest avenue.I get that we shouldn't, but we DO - which is why my marriage is not recognized in VA.I mean should Maryland and Maine negate their marriage equality because it was done by popular vote??If only we could live in a world where this issue didn't exist, but alas, we do not (at this point, anyway).

Me

I don't want to belabor my point any further other than to say that I understand that in some states initiatives (popular vote) can be used to vote on giving or taking away peoples rights. I do not believe that it is a wise way under any circumstances to create law in that regard. I wonder if eventually someone will challenge this concept and bring a case to the SCOTUS?

I'm no constitutional scholar but it seems rights can be impinged upon much too easily by going down that road.

What's done is done in Maine and Maryland. I don't agree at all on how they got where they got. The idea of getting there by "any means" can come back to haunt us as a society down the road.

Initiatives are not always a bad idea but I think the line should be drawn when they pertain to an equal rights issue. There are better avenues to take.

Initiatives are not always a bad idea but I think the line should be drawn when they pertain to an equal rights issue. There are better avenues to take.

I thought about this a little more and the problem is, IMO, not that folks are voting on rights, but whether or not they are considered rights. That is really the crux of the issue. Too many people do not believe that marriage is a right -- just like too many do not believe that healthcare is a right.I suspect just about anyone would agree that "rights" shouldn't be put to a vote -- the problem is agree on what are "rights" and what are something else........

So -- while the definition of something as a "right" or not goes on - initiatives are something that can be used -- just like a legislative vote (which shouldn't be needed for a "right" either).

I thought about this a little more and the problem is, IMO, not that folks are voting on rights, but whether or not they are considered rights. That is really the crux of the issue. Too many people do not believe that marriage is a right -- just like too many do not believe that healthcare is a right.I suspect just about anyone would agree that "rights" shouldn't be put to a vote -- the problem is agree on what are "rights" and what are something else........

So -- while the definition of something as a "right" or not goes on - initiatives are something that can be used -- just like a legislative vote (which shouldn't be needed for a "right" either).

M

Mike,

I agree. Rights are difficult to define. I guess I feel that initiatives are not being used as intended much of the time.

Here is what confuses me and yet another reason I need to educate myself on how the federal justice system works.

If a federal judge says their ban is unconstitutional, then why is Kentucky's still considered constitutional? How can a federal judge decide one state's ban is unconstitutional, but that only applies to that state? Does a federal judge have to rule separately on each state ban? Would a judge need a case from each state? One would think if one ban is unconstitutional, then they all are. Is it left up to SCOTUS to rule on all states? Is this just how it works and SCOTUS would have to make the broad ruling?

The federal judiciary has 3 levels: federal district courts, federal circuit courts of appeals, and the SCOTUS. Each state has at least one district, some have as many as four. The states are then grouped into "circuits" for the circuit courts of appeals. There are currently 11 of them (First Circuit, Second Circuit, etc.), plus the DC Circuit (covering the District of Columbia) and the Federal Circuit (which mainly does things like patent law).

A federal case starts in one of the district courts. A district court's opinion is never a "binding" precedent, i.e., no one else is bound to follow it. It affects the parties to the case only. However, it can be "persuasive" authority that other judges at both the state and federal level can cite to in support of their opinions (or to distinguish the case in front of them, etc.). So, right now, the Utah decision is binding on...Utah. Despite the fact that it makes findings based on constitutional principles.

When the State of Utah appeals the decision, it will go to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. That circuit covers Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. If the 10th Circuit upholds the decision of the judge from the District of Utah, and does so on the same/similar reasoning (i.e., constitutional basis), then the decision becomes binding on the entire 10th Circuit and any other bans in any of those other states would pretty much be history.

From the circuit courts of appeals, the next step is the Supreme Court. A party has to file what's called a petition for certiorari. If "cert" is granted, it means the Supreme Court will hear the case. If it is denied, then the decision from the court below stands, but still only covers that circuit. But it then becomes persuasive authority for other circuits. If another circuit (or circuits) has a conflicting ruling, it makes it more likely that SCOTUS will take one or the other of the cases so it can give a definitive ruling one way or the other with nationwide applicability.

The bottom line is that the district courts have somewhat more limited authority, because if every ruling applied nationwide there would be a whole lot of conflicting law; for example, you might have a judge like the one in Utah say that a ban is unconstitutional, while another judge in, say, Alabama, would be of the Antonin Scalia mindset and say there's absolutely nothing wrong with a marriage equality ban. If they both applied nationwide, which one do you follow? And then it would all just end up in SCOTUS's lap anyhow.

To really answer some of your other questions, then, it's going to have to be a piecemeal approach, unless/until SCOTUS finally rules on the merits. By which time hopefully one of Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito has been replaced by a less ass-backwards justice...Justice Kennedy, while having written Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor, is just a bit too flaky to make him a sure vote for the LGBT equivalent of Loving v. Virginia. In the mean time, though, each one that goes down builds a stronger and stronger case that the remaining ones will go down, too. Here in Michigan, we have a challenge to ours that is going to trial early in the new year. The Utah decision is undoubtedly going to be prominently argued by the plaintiffs.

And, of course, this is all in contrast to the decision in New Mexico, which was from the New Mexico Supreme Court. They decided based on the New Mexico state constitution that marriage should be extended to all couples. And they could do so since they didn't have a ban in their constitution. So, unless there's an initiative to amend the New Mexico Constitution to put a ban in (and it passes), the federal courts won't be getting involved at all.

Hope that helps explain it a bit! Kind of a trip down memory lane to my first year of law school. lol

Now this is just plain nasty openly bigotry behavior. It amazes me why anyone cares who gets married, when getting marriage is such a private personal decision.It doesn't involve society, the town, the neighborhood, and especially strangers.Like someone or some group telling you what color of car you can or can not buy.Who really cares, really? What does it matter to them?Bottom line... it doesn't.This attitude of superiority over another, you can't have this because we own it, or you must have our permission and blessing before preceding, is plain ridiculous.

In this youtube from Utah (above), the clerk doesn't even know these women.Never has known them before, and never will.What the two women decided to do and when they decide is completely of no personal business to this clerk.They get the license, they marry, they go about their private life. The end.This clerk doesn't have to attend the wedding, nor would he be invited.Other than maybe reading these two women's names in the news papers under "WEDDINGS MARRIAGES", this clerk will never again have any contact what so ever with the two women.So it amazes me, and I have to ask this clerk, what is this to you?Who made you the self proclaimed grantor of equality?And why are you such a dick in the first place, fella?

I never thought we would see Marriage Equality coming to fruition so soon. I read an article where the author talked about the supreme court thought they might be buying some time with their first decision, but it looks like it might be back on the docket sooner than they thought.

I'm sure many have already heard the news, that a federal judge ruled today that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This does make me think it may not take another decade to have marriage equality the law of the land everywhere. I may be too optimistic and naive, but this gives me hope things may change much sooner.

Gay couples are likely to be happier and more positive about their relationships than heterosexuals, according to a major study by the Open University published today.

However, they are less likely to be openly affectionate towards each other – holding hands in public, for instance – because they still fear attracting disapproval.

The study of 5,000 people – 50 of whom were later followed up with in-depth interviews – aimed at finding out how modern couples keep their relationships on track through life’s difficulties.read more...

One comment on the article (from a gay man in a relationship) that I thought made sense was this: "Honestly, it seems to me that one of the more obvious factors is that men have more in common with men, and women with women. Why wouldn't it (generally, all things being equal) be more challenging to live with someone of the opposite sex?"

I'm reminded of being at my brother's home years ago when his wife did something particularly inexplicable (at least from a man's point of view). When I asked him about it, his memorable reply was “You have no idea how lucky you are; Sometimes, it's like living with a different species.”

Meanwhile, my partner and I are both marginal housekeepers with similar interests. We can even share ties and socks. And no kids*(!), which by any measure are a source of stress day-to-day, even if they are a blessing in the big picture.

I'm certainly not saying that there aren't millions of happy hetero couples. But it does seem to me that they have some inherent disadvantages right from the start that same-sex couples do not.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I'm sure many have already heard the news, that a federal judge ruled today that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This does make me think it may not take another decade to have marriage equality the law of the land everywhere. I may be too optimistic and naive, but this gives me hope things may change much sooner.

The judge cited in his ruling that OK had one of the highest divorce rates in the country, so as much as that smug-faced Governor - Mary Falling - wants to cheerlead for family values, the data certainly doesn't support her claims. Hysterical.

Logged

"Honey, you should never ask advice from a drunk drag queen who has a show to do." - JG

I'm sure many have already heard the news, that a federal judge ruled today that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This does make me think it may not take another decade to have marriage equality the law of the land everywhere. I may be too optimistic and naive, but this gives me hope things may change much sooner.

If you take Nevada off the "divorce rates by state" list (for obvious "quickie-divorce" reasons) the top ten states are all conservative states. But they also have high marriage rates so really it just kind of means people in such places marry to quickly, or too young, etc. But you can't discuss divorce rates without factoring in economic status so that's why it's lower in a place like the Northeast.

Agreed. As different as my partner and I are we still share a lot of commonalities by both simply being men. It makes things much more convenient. Besides if I ever need to borrow a shirt or pair of underwear I have much to choose from!

The marriage debate is over. I just don't see how the fight can continue in these places. My partner and I got married this year. I'm just starting to get tax forms in the mail and have started about how and where we are going to get our taxes done.

If we were to move to one of these states that's holding their breath and turning blue like a child, they are still at the end of the day going to have to deal with us. What about taxes? What if we get a divorce? What if one of us gets hospitalized in Florida or Oklahoma? They are set up for lawsuit after lawsuit and there no argument to deny. It's already part of US law to recognize licenses from one state to another.

The fighting now is starting to look....sad. Like someone forgot to tell them the war is over.

The problem is not the next two years, but the four years after that. Eventually - I agree - that the tide will turn and this will be a simple chapter in history. Meanwhile, you can rest assured that our Red State friends are banking on this being a wedge issue for SOME in the electorate and no matter whether the platform or party line agrees, disagrees or is non-committal, they CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES BUT TO COURT THESE crazy peopleVOTERS in 2016.

The asylum is in search of a delusional King (or Queen) now that Mr. Christie is doing his best impersonation of a fat lady singing. The visual alone is getting me through this Starbucks knock-off this afternoon. They are anxiously stacking up all the issues that whomever they choose as their candidate will be expected to battle! Obama Care, Marijuana Laws, Imaginary Voter ID, and the horrible, nasty, contagious plague of GAY MARRIAGE (*gasp*). You can bet that if my girl Hillary doesn't come through this time that their emboldened King or Queen will work feverishly to satisfy the asylum that elected them and start issuing all sorts of executive orders! They have to pay back their base - whether they agree with them or not!

It is over. The tide is turning. You can take to the bank that they are going to give it one more Hail Mary pass before they finally see the light, though. They are persistant!

Of course, the prospect of Hillary vs. Paul or Ryan is hilarious. She eats people like that for breakfast. And, hopefully, by then there will be another scandal with some closet-case Republican found looking through the louvers on their closet door.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 01:31:00 PM by Dan0 »

Logged

"Honey, you should never ask advice from a drunk drag queen who has a show to do." - JG

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

The judge in the Kentucky case is due to give his final ruling tomorrow. He already made the ruling a few weeks ago, which said KY must recognize marriages from other jurisdictions. I still don't understand why that was just a preliminary ruling and we've been waiting for the final. There was no stay, so that's not the issue.

The judge says he will not include a stay, when he makes his final ruling. The Attorney General is a Democrat. He has been known in the gay community as being gay himself. When he ran for Congress a few years back, against the then republican incumbent, issues of his sexuality came up. He quickly got married to a woman who was seen as his "hag." It was viewed that he did that to further his political aspirations here in KY. Many believe he wants to run for senate or governor. Whether he's secretly gay or not, I hope he does the right thing and not what seems best for his political aspirations.

And, Eric Holder just told the state Attorneys General that they do not need to defend the bans, as they are discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The final ruling came down here in KY. The attorney general asked for a 90 day delay either to have more time to consider an appeal or to figure out how to implement. Many think that was just cover for his future political aspirations and that he will not appeal. The state did not get involved in the initial case. However, the judge ignored that request-- so far. Many think he felt the state had a chance to do that intially and that time had passed to cause a delay.

Gay couples married in other states are now considered married here. They can have their names changed if desired. It also gives rights to property, medical decisions, taxes, and all that good stuff.

The recent lawsuits filed in Ohio show a turn in tide here also. Who would have ever thought KY or OH would even consider such actions.

I remember my hot youthful days nights spent in the Vanceburg, South Shore, Portsmouth area of the Ohio River. That was the hottest section of hot, horny, fuck anything guys that I've ever met. AAH, such memories. Probably why I'm clinging to that tall, skinny, shirtless, and dumber than rocks types of guys that still get my groin aching.

The state asked for 90 days; the judge gave them 20. Apparently, our attorney general is not delaying to decide to appeal, rather to figure out how to implement. I think the Bush-appointed judge felt 20 days was more than enough time for that.

The suit to get rid of our entire ban was filed on Valentine's Day. I hope that moves quickly. Oh, the tea-party guy challenging Mitch blames Mitch for this. Mitch recommended this judge and Bush appointed him. I am so glad for that. People cannot say this is some Clinton or Obama liberal, activist judge. Well, I'm sure they will and believe he must be a dem appointment judge.

Things are going so well around the country that the ACLU petitioned the court hearing the challenge to the Wisconsin ban to essentially LIFT the ban before the court date because of the 'likelihood they'll win their case'.

I doubt that will happen but you never know....

Logged

"Honey, you should never ask advice from a drunk drag queen who has a show to do." - JG